Trump May Not be a White Supremacist but He is In Fact a Bigot

[martybegan]

I had not formed an opinion either way

But you did form an opinion about Obama. You said so yourself that he had to meet your standard of "sufficient" in order for you to accept that he was born in Hawaii. Which means prior to that standard, you didn't think he was born here. Otherwise, why provide sufficient proof at all? So that's how you're a racist shithead lying sack of crap.

I followed the stories, saw the BC

Followed the stories, eh? What made you follow those stories? How come you weren't like most people and were "this birther thing is bullshit"? Obviously because you were a birther. This isn't very hard to figure out and you're digging yourself in deeper.

Just like I stopped following stories on McCain and Cruz when the issue of their birth was settled to my satisfaction.

The issues around McCain and Cruz were entirely different than what you put Obama through. Obama, unlike Cruz and McCain, was physically born in the United States, yet you required his birth certificate to satisfy your idea of sufficient. Which means you didn't think he was born in Hawaii if he has to prove to you that he was.

So you can re-word and dance your way around with your rhetoric all you'd like, the fact is that you were (and may still be) a birther.

Just because I didn't post on something didn't mean I wasn't following it. A lack of posting about it does not evidence make.

Kinda hard to believe since you posted over 35,000 messages about everything else since April 2010. Including about Obama's birth certificate. So I don't believe you when you say you were "following it". I think you're just saying that so you don't look as bad. Once again, you've managed to make something all about you and your shitty ego.

No i read about it and discussed it. The provision of the certificate ended my interest in the topic

But you didn't discuss it. We can search your posts, you know. Why are you lying? What are you hoping to gain by lying? It makes no sense for you to lie at this point when we all know the truth. Is this a denial thing? What gives?

Because this is probably the most I have discussed the topic of ANY of their eligibility questions. It wasn't a topic that interested me once I read the proofs of all their eligibility.

No, marty, you didn't discuss their eligibility at all, yet you posted about Obama's birth certificate. So why is that the case? Simple; you're a racist.

you can believe what you want.

But if I claim it's a religious exercise you have to accept it as fact, right?

I saw a BC, the matter was closed to me.

Again, just read the stuff, didn't form a hard opinion either way. It was over in a few weeks anyway.

So? Again not evidence of anything.

Again, not evidence of anything.

again, not evidence of anything.

 

[martybegan]

None of my arguments are false, you just don't like or don't understand them.

All of your arguments are false. They are rife with self-contradictions, avoidance, and just plain lies. Stuff that is so easily called out it boggles the mind you would even think of lying about it in the first place. I think you do what you do because you are an insecure, whiny little bitch. Someone who knows his beliefs are bullshit, but whose ego prevents him from admitting as such. So you say things like how you don't have to provide proof (!), or that we should take your word for it, or whatever. My question, that is still unanswered, is why the fuck should I take you at your word? You're making your word the central pillar of your argument, yet you refuse to defend it! So your word needs to be supported with something in order for it to be trusted. But you refuse to do that. Because you can't, obviously.

You're just a fucking bigot. A passive-aggressive bigot, but a bigot nonetheless.

Providing the cake for a ceremony that celebrates something they find immoral is the issue, not the baking..

Again, a wedding reception is not a ceremony. So you're trying to conflate the two because that's the only way your sophist argument makes sense. But you know that a wedding reception and wedding ceremony are two different things. I know you know that. The question is; why aren't you admitting that on this board? And how would the bakers even know if the cake was a part of the ceremony, in the weirdo instance where cake (!) is somehow incorporated in with the exchanging of vows. Fucking stupid. You're such a liar. You'd even go so far as to lie about your own wedding reception because you think it might help you win an argument. Seriously, you're a piece of shit and I pity your poor wife.

And more appeal to authority from you.

That's rich since your entire argument hinges on the appeal to an invisible authority when it comes to baking a cake. If we don't appeal to authority (i.e. the courts), then what's the point of our judicial system? Fuck man, you don't even seem to know the function of the Judicial branch! They are literally the authority you appeal to. And unlike your God, they're not invisible.

This is just pathetic. You're an embarrassment.

Butt hurt is not harm.

So stop whining about paying the price for discrimination, then. Sheesh. If I have to hear one more Christian whine about how bad it makes them feel that gay people eat a cake they baked...SMH. Talk about butt hurt. You've done nothing but whine like a little bitch. On this board. Oh woe is the poor bigots who are only trying to be bigots and using their religion to justify it! Oh woe is them! Wahhhhh!

and there is no right of a person to have the specific cake they want from a specific vendor.

If that bakery is a public accommodation, which it is, then they have no grounds to discriminate. Period. Full stop. You are pretending that contracting is not a point of sale, but it certainly is. Contractors cannot discriminate based on protected statuses. So you think you're being clever by making shit up about the law, but you're not. You're just making shit up.

The harm is them having to choose between a massive fine and violating the religious moral beliefs.

Can you please point out where in the Bible it talks about baking cakes for weddings? Can you please point out where in the Bible it says baking a cake is an exercising of Christianity? Oh wait, you don't think you have to prove any of that shit. LOL!

You: Baking a cake is a religious exercise.
Me: Really? Where in the Bible does it say that?
You: I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY PROOF
Me: So you just made that up then?
You: STOP BEING A NARCISSIST! STOP APPEALING TO AUTHORITY*
Me: You're the one saying bakers are appealing to the invisible authority that is God.
You: (no response because you just realized your own argument was tripped by your own rhetoric)

*I think you just learned that phrase today and were looking for an excuse to use it, BTW

That is your view, it is not theirs. and the cutting of the cake by the bride and groom has been an integral part of the overall event for centuries.

Thing is, you and they refuse to say how they came to that as their view, and on what are they basing that view. Which means they just came to that view just then and are basing it on their bigotry. Because if you're going to call me out for appealing to authority, ya kinda have to do it to them too since the authority they are appealing to is invisible and imaginary.

That's how it works.

Wall of text, Tl,dr.

doesn't matter, it's a celebration, hell it doesn't even have to be religious in and of itself. it just has to be legally witnessed.

Again, it's not my views, it's my defense of other's rights that you can't understand, because you are so full of yourself you can only defend what YOU think is right.

More anger against religious people, blah blah blah.

More, blah blah blah.

More " I hate religious people and wank off to their misery", blah blah blah.

 

[martybegan]

Again, that is your view. Theirs is different, and its their civil rights that are being violated in the name of "equality"

There aren't multiple "views" at play here. There is only the law, and the bigots' attempts to justify abrogating responsibility to the law. It's not up for debate that they violated the civil rights of gay people. They did. That's why they're in court. The debate that should happen is; how is baking a cake a religious act? You say they and you don't have to provide proof of any kind that it is, only that merely saying so makes it so. Well, that's not how the law works, the courts work, and society works. You don't get to invent things on the spot, pretend those things are the standard, all so you can justify your racism and/or bigotry. So how is baking a cake a religious act when there's no mention of it in the Bible, and the cake isn't even a part of the ceremony they "object" to based solely and only on their bigoted racist interpretation of what they think God thinks.

So it's like the Conservative trifecta: Narcissism, bigotry, and irresponsibility.

Just because you dismiss the point doesn't make it invalid.

What makes it invalid is how you refuse to provide anything to support it. You said yourself you don't have to. Really? Well, that's not what the courts said. So you can just claim any act is a religious one, right? Isn't that what you're doing? You do something wrong because you're a piece of shit, so you try to excuse it by throwing your hands up and saying "oh, it's religious exercising". When asked how it's religious exercising, your reply was "I don't have to say how, it just is". No. You have to say how. Otherwise, you're opening the door for any action against the law as being one of religious exercise. Which is bullshit because you just got done saying my examples of religious exercising aren't because they break the law. Well, discriminating against gay people is against the law too. You don't get a special exemption because you claim religion. Mostly because you refuse to even say how it is religious in the first place. And the fucked up thing is that I think you already know that. Yet you do it anyway. Which makes you a sophist and an asshole.

You are splitting hairs because you have no real argument past "I don't like these people, let government mess with them, fap fap fap fap"

How am I splitting hairs? Explain. I think you just spout off random shit because you think it makes you look more clever than you actually are. As I've said countless times, I don't care if you worship some magic cloud fairy. Just do it in the privacy of your home and in your church. Don't bring that shit to society where it can fuck with the minds of children. We have to think of the children. We can't let them believe that you can justify any action by claiming religious freedom. Because that's how we got Jim Crow, among other stains.

You said you would rape my wife. Family member involved AND a proposed Criminal act.

No, what I said was that if I fucked your wife (consent wasn't even discussed), you can't get mad at her or me because I did so as a religious exercise. What you did, again, was exercise sophistry and lies and pretend that I said I raped her, when you and I both know that wasn't what I said, and we can even go back at the thread and look at what I said. So you deliberately misrepresented what I said in order to make yourself a victim. And you're not a sophist? LOL! whatever.

And a self defense claim is affirmative, and not a question of religious dogma..

According to you. And we know that you just make up accommodations whenever it suits your fluid, ever-changing, goalpost-shifting, parameter-redefining argument. You notice how inconsistent you are about what you believe? First you said baking a cake was a religious exercise. Then you said, "oh baking a cake for the ceremony is a religious exercise", then you said "oh baking a cake in celebration of the ceremony is a religious exercise" so in three posts you changed the context of what you said three times. And you're not a sophist? LOL...OK, pal...

How is getting a wedding cake from a particular vendor a civil right?

I support it with the constitution, which you choose to ignore because you hate religious people

And free exercise doesn't mean worship in the closet. You don't get to have the vapors just because you see a cross or see someone praying in public, or referencing their religion in their politics.

Family members are off limits, you broke the rules, and you are a terrible person.

Is sophism something your college professor just taught you about?

i googled it. came up empty.

so at this point, only cause he wants it to be.

he's a wlb.

for the topic itself, i tried to address it with him how come people could refuse service of their work to the trumps and of course, on queue he social sliced his way into making it happen and all be good and proper. that's about when i gave up. i don't think the baker did anything wrong. i don't think the gay couple is wrong. this is only an issue cause social justice warriors are running low on cecils and hambares.

Interesting Times article about it, it seems as long as point of sale services are not denied, a lot of people are siding with the bakers.

Must a baker make a gay couple's wedding cake? Surprising number of NY Times readers say no - Hot Air

From the article:

I’m gay myself but in this situation, I’m actually finding myself siding more with the baker than the gay couple. The baker stated that he would create other types of cakes for gay people or any people — just not wedding cakes. It clarifies he’s not broadly discriminating against gay people.

I think the politics of nondiscrimination have gone too far and are being too often used now to bully people. Yes, in an ideal world, this baker would have his eyes opened and would not allow religion to narrow him in this way. But I think we are going too far with the state trying to force people to be completely without prejudice.

 

[airplanemechanic]

A wedding isn't religious. Atheists get married all the time.

Exactly. So baking a cake for a wedding has no religious connotations to it either. Which makes the excuses bullshit, doesn't it?

Wrong. It's not the religion of gay that they are protesting it's the fact that they don't agree with gay and don't support it and don't want to be a part of anything having to do with their queerdom. And that is their right, sorry. Gay isn't a religion so it's not protected.

 

[The Derp]

Wrong. It's not the religion of gay that they are protesting it's the fact that they don't agree with gay

Don't agree with gay based on what? Because no where in their holy book does it mention baking cakes or gay weddings. And further to that point, I thought the whole point of religion was that God forgives and Jesus died for your sins. What those bigots seem to be telling me is that the God they worship doesn't, in fact, forgive if they can't bake a wedding cake because of their religion. So, wouldn't that make their entire religious argument bullshit? How can they prove harm to their religious beliefs if they cannot cite where in their religious dogma their God supposedly won't forgive the act of baking a cake for a reception after a wedding?

Also, being gay isn't something you agree with. It's something you either accept or you don't. Not accepting it means you're a bigot.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Wrong. It's not the religion of gay that they are protesting it's the fact that they don't agree with gay

Don't agree with gay based on what? Because no where in their holy book does it mention baking cakes or gay weddings.

No but it does specifically state that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Thus you can easily say that it violates your religious freedom to NOT bake a cake for a gay wedding.

It's not a sin to bake a cake for a gay wedding but if their religion tells them its wrong or they feel it is, who are you to say its not?

Or do only SOME people have religious rights, just not Christians?

 

[The Derp]

You set the standard to jail them at "KNOWINGLY" violating the rights of the cake wanters.

Swap in cake for anything and the underlying bigotry remains. This isn't about baking cakes, this is about bigotry and using squishy religious liberty to defend it. But that argument it tripped up by its own rhetoric; if the God they worship supposedly forgives and his son died for our sins, then why can't the bakers just bake the cake and ask God for forgiveness? If the Catholic Church can get forgiveness for covering up centuries of child sexual abuse then why can't bakers for baking a cake for a party? Are you telling me God is OK forgiving child rape but not OK baking a cake?

 

[airplanemechanic]

You obviously are not a Christian. You don't intentionally sin then ask for forgiveness. That's not how it works.

Baking a gay cake isn't a sin, but as Christians, we have a right to not do things for queers if we don't want to. Separation of church and state. It's a violation to make someone do otherwise.

 

[The Derp]

Now you are arguing that what they "know" doesn't matter.

They don't know it. Marty McFuckup just argued in another post that he and they don't have to provide any proof of their argument. So that means they say they "know" something, yet cannot prove that something. That I should take their word for it that God won't forgive them for baking a cake. My question is why the fuck should I take their word for it? What have they done to establish that level of trust and credibility? You're here arguing they don't have to defend it, so why the fuck should I trust it? And couldn't I just then burn down a church of white people and say it was an exercise of my religious beliefs?

I have no idea what you are on about.

I called your beliefs boring in an earlier post. "Boring" must have really struck a chord with you because right after you read that post, you lob the charge of "boring" right back at me. Suspicious, right?

There was nothing there but unsupported personal opinion and bile.

Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of religious beliefs is nothing but an "unsupported personal opinion." You all refuse to support your argument that God won't forgive you for baking a cake. So WTF, dude?

 

[The Derp]

No but it does specifically state that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord.

That's their interpretation of it. An interpretation they choose to not support with any facts or proof. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure child rape is a sin too, yet the Catholic Church gets forgiveness from God for that. So why can't bakers ask for forgiveness for baking a cake? And if God won't forgtive you for baking a cake, why the fuck would you worship that God at all???? Seems like the wrong deity to put all your faith in if it's OK with child rape but not OK with baking cakes.

 

[Correll]

You set the standard to jail them at "KNOWINGLY" violating the rights of the cake wanters.

Swap in cake for anything and the underlying bigotry remains. This isn't about baking cakes, this is about bigotry and using squishy religious liberty to defend it. But that argument it tripped up by its own rhetoric; if the God they worship supposedly forgives and his son died for our sins, then why can't the bakers just bake the cake and ask God for forgiveness? If the Catholic Church can get forgiveness for covering up centuries of child sexual abuse then why can't bakers for baking a cake for a party? Are you telling me God is OK forgiving child rape but not OK baking a cake?

Their rights are not based on you agreeing with their personal views.

YOU gave YOUR standard as "knowingly violating the rights of others" and now you can't support your claim that the bakers did that, yet you still want to put them in jail.

 

[airplanemechanic]

That's their interpretation of it.

Um no, it's plain.

Whichever version you want to read, it's pretty plain. No room for "interpretation."

New International Version
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

New Living Translation
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

English Standard Version
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

New American Standard Bible
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

King James Bible
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall beupon them.

 

[The Derp]

It's not a sin to bake a cake for a gay wedding but if their religion tells them its wrong or they feel it is, who are you to say its not??

Who are they to say it is? They're the ones who make the religious argument against baking, yet you're here saying they don't have to support that argument with anything. So what's to stop me from murdering a bunch of Christians and claiming it was an exercise of my religion? Nothing, according to this argument of yours. If this "it's what they feel" argument is the one you're going to make, you're gonna have to apply that to all religions and all criminal acts by those doing so in the name of their religion. Which means you cannot argue against Islamic terrorism because that is the exercise of religious beliefs as those people "feel. Who are you to say it isn't?" Because terrorism and discrimination are both against the law. So what we have here is a Conservative trying to impose a makeshift standard to what they obviously identify is a fallacious argument.

Or do only SOME people have religious rights, just not Christians?

If this standard of yours is to be broadly applied to all religions then you cannot oppose or criminalize Islamic terrorism since that's breaking the law in the name of religious exercise. Just like you're defending here. The degree of the offense shouldn't matter, right? So long as they "feel" they are acting within their religious exercise, it's OK, right? Because that's the argument you made.

 

[airplanemechanic]

WTF are you talking about? I showed you no fewer than 5 bible verses that plainly state homosexuality is a sin, an abomination to the Lord. Why should Christians be forced, plainly against their religion, to do ANYTHING having to do with a gay wedding?

You're tying Islamic terrorism to baking a gay cake?

You really are fucked up in the head. Goodbye you fuckhead. It's obvious you lost this argument plain and simple.

 

[Correll]

Now you are arguing that what they "know" doesn't matter.

They don't know it. Marty McFuckup just argued in another post that he and they don't have to provide any proof of their argument. So that means they say they "know" something, yet cannot prove that something. That I should take their word for it that God won't forgive them for baking a cake. My question is why the fuck should I take their word for it? What have they done to establish that level of trust and credibility? You're here arguing they don't have to defend it, so why the fuck should I trust it? And couldn't I just then burn down a church of white people and say it was an exercise of my religious beliefs?

When YOU set the standard of them "knowing" something, you make what they think in their head the proof.

I don't know how you can prove that they are lying about what they think, but as that's YOUR argument, that proof is on YOU.

I have no idea what you are on about.

I called your beliefs boring in an earlier post. "Boring" must have really struck a chord with you because right after you read that post, you lob the charge of "boring" right back at me. Suspicious, right?[/QUOTE]


I've already told you that when you go on and on about off topic shit, that I just skim.

I don't remember reading you saying "boring" but I very well might have sort of seen it, and that prompted me to use it.

And, I don't know what you think is "suspicious" about that.

There was nothing there but unsupported personal opinion and bile.

Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of religious beliefs is nothing but an "unsupported personal opinion." You all refuse to support your argument that God won't forgive you for baking a cake. So WTF, dude?[/QUOTE]


THe difference is that I am not asking the government to prosecute you for having an opinion that I disagree with.


You are very welcome to hate Christianity, and even Christians.


I think you are a bad person, because of it, but I am not trying to put you in jail.

 

[The Derp]

doesn't matter, it's a celebration, hell it doesn't even have to be religious in and of itself. it just has to be legally witnessed.

So that's a standard you just invented on the spot. Exactly what I was talking about earlier. So...you're saying that these bigots think their God won't forgive them for baking a cake for a party? It's not even for the wedding, broadly it's for a party. So they and you are gonna have to prove how it's harmful to their religious beliefs that the thing they baked was eaten at a party. I don't think you can do it. That's why you fall back on the "feelings" argument. And if we apply that "feeling" argument broadly to all religions and all actions by religious people, then we suddenly can justify Islamic terrorism. After all, those terrorists are merely exercising their religious beliefs when they blow themselves up. I'm guessing you don't want to apply that standard to those actions, huh? Now comes the time where you arbitrarily set degrees, to some unseen and unknown standard, of what is acceptable religious law breaking and what isn't. Which really means you're just a poseur and a bigot.

Again, it's not my views, it's my defense of other's rights that you can't understand, because you are so full of yourself you can only defend what YOU think is right.

Defense that isn't informed by anything other than the "feelings" of bigots. If you are going to apply exemptions for breaking the law in the name of religion, then you have to apply those exemptions to all religious law breaking, not just baking. Which means you have to defend Islmic terrorists who blow themselves up in the name of Allah because they are exercising their religious beliefs when they do that. Who are you to say it isn't?

More anger against religious people, blah blah blah.

Because religious people are cowards who are fully aware of the contradictions in their faith, yet ignore them anyway. You can't spell ignorance without ignore.

More " I hate religious people and wank off to their misery", blah blah blah.

Again, none of my posts ever said that. Actually, I've said if you want to worship a magic cloud fairy go for it. Just do it in the privacy of your home or in a church, where it belongs. Not in the public space where children can be exposed to that bigotry and con.

 

[Correll]

doesn't matter, it's a celebration, hell it doesn't even have to be religious in and of itself. it just has to be legally witnessed.

So that's a standard you just invented on the spot. Exactly what I was talking about earlier. So...you're saying that these bigots think their God won't forgive them for baking a cake for a party? It's not even for the wedding, broadly it's for a party. So they and you are gonna have to prove how it's harmful to their religious beliefs that the thing they baked was eaten at a party. I don't think you can do it. That's why you fall back on the "feelings" argument. And if we apply that "feeling" argument broadly to all religions and all actions by religious people, then we suddenly can justify Islamic terrorism. After all, those terrorists are merely exercising their religious beliefs when they blow themselves up. I'm guessing you don't want to apply that standard to those actions, huh? Now comes the time where you arbitrarily set degrees, to some unseen and unknown standard, of what is acceptable religious law breaking and what isn't. Which really means you're just a poseur and a bigot.

Again, it's not my views, it's my defense of other's rights that you can't understand, because you are so full of yourself you can only defend what YOU think is right.

Defense that isn't informed by anything other than the "feelings" of bigots. If you are going to apply exemptions for breaking the law in the name of religion, then you have to apply those exemptions to all religious law breaking, not just baking. Which means you have to defend Islmic terrorists who blow themselves up in the name of Allah because they are exercising their religious beliefs when they do that. Who are you to say it isn't?

More anger against religious people, blah blah blah.

Because religious people are cowards who are fully aware of the contradictions in their faith, yet ignore them anyway. You can't spell ignorance without ignore.

More " I hate religious people and wank off to their misery", blah blah blah.

Again, none of my posts ever said that. Actually, I've said if you want to worship a magic cloud fairy go for it. Just do it in the privacy of your home or in a church, where it belongs. Not in the public space where children can be exposed to that bigotry and con.

Marty has already addressed the fact that worshiping allowed only in private is not Free Worship.

You did not respond to that obvious point, and just reasserted your position.


That's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion, and your point is invalid.



And dude, just saying, Marty is kicking your ass all over the place and you are making it easy for him.

 

[martybegan]

doesn't matter, it's a celebration, hell it doesn't even have to be religious in and of itself. it just has to be legally witnessed.

So that's a standard you just invented on the spot. Exactly what I was talking about earlier. So...you're saying that these bigots think their God won't forgive them for baking a cake for a party? It's not even for the wedding, broadly it's for a party. So they and you are gonna have to prove how it's harmful to their religious beliefs that the thing they baked was eaten at a party. I don't think you can do it. That's why you fall back on the "feelings" argument. And if we apply that "feeling" argument broadly to all religions and all actions by religious people, then we suddenly can justify Islamic terrorism. After all, those terrorists are merely exercising their religious beliefs when they blow themselves up. I'm guessing you don't want to apply that standard to those actions, huh? Now comes the time where you arbitrarily set degrees, to some unseen and unknown standard, of what is acceptable religious law breaking and what isn't. Which really means you're just a poseur and a bigot.

Again, it's not my views, it's my defense of other's rights that you can't understand, because you are so full of yourself you can only defend what YOU think is right.

Defense that isn't informed by anything other than the "feelings" of bigots. If you are going to apply exemptions for breaking the law in the name of religion, then you have to apply those exemptions to all religious law breaking, not just baking. Which means you have to defend Islmic terrorists who blow themselves up in the name of Allah because they are exercising their religious beliefs when they do that. Who are you to say it isn't?

More anger against religious people, blah blah blah.

Because religious people are cowards who are fully aware of the contradictions in their faith, yet ignore them anyway. You can't spell ignorance without ignore.

More " I hate religious people and wank off to their misery", blah blah blah.

Again, none of my posts ever said that. Actually, I've said if you want to worship a magic cloud fairy go for it. Just do it in the privacy of your home or in a church, where it belongs. Not in the public space where children can be exposed to that bigotry and con.

Same crap you posted over and over from the first sentence so TLldr

If they blow themselves up without harming anyone else or damaging someone else's property, it could be seen as free exercise. Once actual harm is done to something or someone else, though, that goes out the window. Interesting mental exercise.

More derpy repeated talking points. boring.

Your posts reek of it. your need to insult religious people with your magic cloud fairy crap is the icing on the cake of your bigotry. And again, boo fucking hoo if you have to witness religious people doing religious things. does it give you the vapors, scarlett?

 

[The Derp]

You obviously are not a Christian. You don't intentionally sin then ask for forgiveness. That's not how it works.

That seems to be exactly how it works, in fact. The Catholic Church, for example, intentionally sinned when it sanctioned the institutional rape of children then also intentionally sinned when it covered up that institutionalized rape. You expect me to believe that they "unintentionally" moved Priests around from church to church, knowing they're predators and did nothing about it?

And what is an "unintentional sin" anyway? Couldn't the bakers just unintentionally bake the cake for what they did or didn't know was a gay wedding? If you are supposed to be a Christian, then you are also supposed to know what is a sin and what isn't. Which makes the entire idea of an "unintentional sin" fucking silly. It's not the bakers who are getting gay married. It's not the bakers who are cutting the cake. That is just a bullshit excuse to continue discriminating against gays because you're a bigot and nothing more.

Baking a gay cake isn't a sin, but as Christians, we have a right to not do things for queers if we don't want to.

No you don't have that right. And furthermore, thank you for admitting that Christians are bigots who base their bigotry not on anything God said or did, but because of their own sexual repression and insecurities. You can't just do whatever you want and excuse it away by saying you're merely "exercising your religious beliefs". Becuase if that's the standard you're using, then it's simple to justify Islamic terrorism too. After all, those folks are just doing "what they feel when it comes to their religious beliefs". And who are you to say it isn't?

Separation of church and state. It's a violation to make someone do otherwise.

No, it's a violation to impose your religious dogma on others. That's why those bakers haven't won a single court case yet. And why they never will.

 

[The Derp]

WTF are you talking about? I showed you no fewer than 5 bible verses that plainly state homosexuality is a sin

The bakers aren't doing anything homosexual. They're baking a cake. You're stretching the action of baking to fall under the banner of "religious exercising" while saying at the same time that weddings aren't religious. And for every one verse from the Bible you drag out, I can counter those with verses like "turn the other cheek", "love thy neighbor", etc.

This is really just about you wanting to justify your bigotry because of whatever sexual repression and insecurities you have. If anyone can just claim religious exercise for any action, then you can't get upset about Islamic terrorism -or fight it- because Islamic terrorism is their way of exercising their religious beliefs. So who are you to say it isn't?

You're tying Islamic terrorism to baking a gay cake?

You're the one saying it's OK to break the law so long as you claim you did so as an "exercise of religion." So if you're going to invent that standard on the spot, which you've done, you have to broadly apply that standard to all religious actions of which islamic terrorism is one. Who are you to say Islamic terrorism isn't an exercising of religious beliefs? If Christians can discriminate against gay people because they "feel" their religious beliefs say that, then the same standard must apply to Muslim terrorists who claim the same fucking thing.

You really are fucked up in the head. Goodbye you fuckhead. It's obvious you lost this argument plain and simple.

What's fucked up is that you just realized your broad religious excuse argument, when applied to all religions, casts your argument in a shitty light. So you run away like a fucking coward, declaring victry so you don't have to reconcile the inherent contradiction in your argument.

Eat shit, poseur.